Why teams shouldn't pick RBs in first round of the draft (new from SteelCityStats)

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

User Info Menu

Join Date

May 2008

Posts

3,776

I would say, Yes...You could find highly productive or even Pro Bowl caliber RBs later in the draft. You could say that about every position but it seems RB is one that gets the attention because of the touches. I would say it is very rare where a RB clearly warrants that high 1st round grade where he seperates himself from everyone else. That "special" guy coming out where you could see he is a game changer. The speed of the game in the jump is a big equilizer for RBs. That is where being a football player first makes those mid-late round picks have production at this level. There is no meter at the combine that measures "football player". When you put the ball in his hands 20-30 times a game at this level, the football players come to the top & the "athletes" may struggle.

RBs are one of those skill positions where a player can be highly productive in the NFL because of intangibles & non-measurables. It is also difficult at times to project what you see on tape because of whom they played for meaning talent around them, system, depth etc. at the college level. You can find that RB with average measurables that may have unique vision, the ability to be a one cut decisive runner, runs downhill with a good pad level, ability to break tackles & not go down on first contact, and has great balance & feet. A real workhorse who is durable. Not a home run hitter but a chain mover and can get you big chunks. Those are the guys you can find throughout the draft. They can be a "feature" back and make DC gameplan to stop them. I don't think that "risk reward" factor balances out enough for RBs drafted high. Personally, I don't like any RB this year in the top 50.

User Info Menu

Join Date

Dec 2008

Posts

735

The Lacy highlights shows him executing "spin" moves. That should move him out of consideration since Steeler Nation dislikes Spindenhall. What I've seen of Lacy, I think I would rather resign Mendenhall. Mendenhall has been a basically productive player, and he's faster. He's been out for a year so he should be able to rehab and get ready for a few more seasons. So he was mad and stayed home for a game, which he wouldn't have dressed or played in anyway. I don't think that warrants the death penalty. If he is contrite, he's forgiven. I'm easy. I don't trust Dwyer or Redman to be a lead back next year and if they don't draft a back in the top 2-3 rds, you don't know what you'll get. The FA crop of RBs is not that enticing.

User Info Menu

Join Date

Jun 2008

Posts

4,695

Originally Posted by JUST-PLAIN-NASTY

I would say, Yes...You could find highly productive or even Pro Bowl caliber RBs later in the draft. You could say that about every position but it seems RB is one that gets the attention because of the touches. I would say it is very rare where a RB clearly warrants that high 1st round grade where he seperates himself from everyone else. That "special" guy coming out where you could see he is a game changer. The speed of the game in the jump is a big equilizer for RBs. That is where being a football player first makes those mid-late round picks have production at this level. There is no meter at the combine that measures "football player". When you put the ball in his hands 20-30 times a game at this level, the football players come to the top & the "athletes" may struggle.

RBs are one of those skill positions where a player can be highly productive in the NFL because of intangibles & non-measurables. It is also difficult at times to project what you see on tape because of whom they played for meaning talent around them, system, depth etc. at the college level. You can find that RB with average measurables that may have unique vision, the ability to be a one cut decisive runner, runs downhill with a good pad level, ability to break tackles & not go down on first contact, and has great balance & feet. A real workhorse who is durable. Not a home run hitter but a chain mover and can get you big chunks. Those are the guys you can find throughout the draft. They can be a "feature" back and make DC gameplan to stop them. I don't think that "risk reward" factor balances out enough for RBs drafted high. Personally, I don't like any RB this year in the top 50.

Also, the article mentions that taking Lacy at 17 over all is too high. I haven't seen ANYONE assert that Lacy go in the 1st round. Everyone has him listed as a 2nd round pick. There have been a ton of top RBs taken in the 2nd round, including Ray Rice, Mo Jo, LeSean McCoy, Matt Forte, Clinton Portis, Travis Henry, Tiki Barber, Corey Dillon, Mike Alstott, Charlie Garner, etc.

Also, the article mentions that taking Lacy at 17 over all is too high. I haven't seen ANYONE assert that Lacy go in the 1st round. Everyone has him listed as a 2nd round pick. There have been a ton of top RBs taken in the 2nd round, including Ray Rice, Mo Jo, LeSean McCoy, Matt Forte, Clinton Portis, Travis Henry, Tiki Barber, Corey Dillon, Mike Alstott, Charlie Garner, etc.

Not sure if we are arguing the same thing. The article suggests that it's not worth taking a RB in the 1st round because only 8 out of the top 20 RB's in 2012 are 1st round guys. Chadman pointed out that is 40% of the top 20 RB's coming from 1 round, while 60% is spread among the remaining 6 rounds.

Simple maths will show that no other round is as successful in 2012 than the 1st round for RB's, because no other single round of the draft can produce 40% of the top 20 RB's.

That doesn't mean you can't find players in Round 7 that will be successful- but stats prove that it's definately harder.

User Info Menu

Join Date

Jan 2013

Location

Pittsburgh

Posts

11

Originally Posted by Chadman

The article suggests that it's not worth taking a RB in the 1st round because only 8 out of the top 20 RB's in 2012 are 1st round guys. Chadman pointed out that is 40% of the top 20 RB's coming from 1 round, while 60% is spread among the remaining 6 rounds.

Simple maths will show that no other round is as successful in 2012 than the 1st round for RB's, because no other single round of the draft can produce 40% of the top 20 RB's.

That doesn't mean you can't find players in Round 7 that will be successful- but stats prove that it's definately harder.

What you say is true, however it's not the point. The point is that there is not much drop off between the first through third round running backs (see the confidence interval chart), especially when you remove AP's stats. Shame on the franchise that reaches and overspends on a position where there is so much fungibility. Unless you can guarantee you're going to turn a back into Peterson, you should wait until the 2nd round to grab a back...and he'd better be good at receiving also.

You can't just look at the 8/20 fact, albeit it's tempting to. I can counterpoint it with these (which are qualitative in nature - not quantitative because I can't prove they're significant):
- 4 of the top 10 RBs (in terms of rushing yards) are on losing teams, including the team with the first overall pick this draft
- all 4 of the conference championship game teams (ATL, BAL, SF, NE) have starting RBs that are from the 2nd round or higher in the draft.
- Ray Rice is the highest drafted player of those 4 teams and he was 55th overall (almost 3rd round)